If anyone still doubts the Gallup Poll -- and common sense -- showing that Mitt Romney is way ahead in the polls, all they had to do was watch the third presidential debate to have their minds changed. Romney put the game into the "four corners" stall, running out the clock while turning away numerous chances for easy slam-dunks and taking care not to stop the clock. Barack Obama, meanwhile, was pressing, slashing, and committing all kinds of fouls. Referee Bob Schieffer, not wanting to share in Candy Crowley's sordid legacy, let the players play. That's the good news. The bad news is that since Mitt is ahead and George W. Bush is the devil, we have to pretend that it was indeed Obama, with Crocodile Dundee's knife clenched between his teeth, who brought Osama bin Laden to justice.

When Obama said he promoted democracy and women’s rights, and freedom of religious expression. I wanted to gag. The new regime in Egypt has done nothing to stop the slaughter of Coptic Christians, I’ve been on a lot of websites asking the President to help some of these women accused of adultery or abanding Islam and converting to Christianity will die, and HE DOES NOTHING. Absolutely Nothing. The least he could do is send in the French Poodle Hillary Clinton to sweet talk the radicals. He has no fangs...when he confronts.

Romney’s team said that he wanted to avoid the lasting impression of conflict with the president and, instead, look presidential and prepared. I do wish he’d pushed Benghazi. but we all know that Obama would just tell more lies and the truth would not come out, so we must pray that the media and Congress do their best in that.

I think Mitt did look like he knew what he was talking about. You could see that Obama is not any more presidential than we’ve known him to be. He is easily angered and petulant. He hates being challenged and can only play with the set of “facts” he invents. He looked a couple times to be bailed out, but the moderator didn’t. Mitt kept his cool and doled out a couple doozies to Obama and Obama sulked at them.

Obama has been campaigning since 2010 elections were over. He’s played over 400 rounds of golf. He’s taken 17 vacations that we know of. He has appeared on several talk shows and invites people to play basketball with him all the time. He sleeps in till late morning and takes national security briefings about a 1/3 of the time. He & MIchelle spend like there is no tomorrow in an economy that might not have a tomorrow for most of the nation.
He shows callous disregard for the death of an Ambassador and 3 others, for true freedom fighters who are looking for his support, and when our own troops are in harm’s way. He pays tribute to the world’s dictators and terrorists and invites the enemy into the WH. He has filled the ranks of both czars and real cabinet posts with Marxists and cronies who hate America like he does. He talks a big talk to the public about our enemies, but backs away from real action. He blames everybody but himself for all his failures. Can anyone remember one thing he has said was his fault? No, he didn’t really take the blame for Benghazi yet. He said the buck stops with him, but he has not taken responsibility for anything about it yet. I think he is waiting for the lame stream media to bail him on that one...and the LA Times has started to.

Can anyone name ONE presidential thing this guy has done (right)? People earn the right for office on merit. There is none so far. Empty platitudes don’t help someone who’s been in the office for 4 years already and has not made a significant impression that he can handle the job. This guy just wants the benefits that go with the job, not the work entailed. We cannot afford 4 more years of this and his Marxist cronies. We will either be a Marxist nation or an Islamic one. Not sure which would be worse, but I don’t want to find out.

I can’t stand when he lets lines like, “The failed economic policies of the past” go unanswered. Mitt needs to remind people that the recession of 2008 was due to the housing crisis fostered for 30 years by the Democrats.

“Ahead by 6 to 7 points today. It’ll be by 14 points when Trump releases the divorce papers Michelle drew up while obama was a senator claiming the Prez was foolin around with the guys. Rumor or fact. Stay tuned wednesday at noon.”

That is the one thing that bothers me most about republicans, in general. President Bush had an unemployment rate hovering around 5.5 percent for most of his presidency. It didn't start ticking up until the rats took over Congress his last two years. After the devastating attack on 9/11 so many jobs were lost - on Wall Street, in the service industry, people afraid to fly, etc. But we came back. I don't understand why repubicans will not give President Bush credit where credit is due. It's like even they blame Bush for what happened the last months of his presidency.

To quote Quint from Jaws (of all things) “That shark is either very smart or very dumb.” I thought the same of Mitt at the start of last night's debate.

It was a brilliant strategy. We're not his audience. Undecided woman were - and he got ‘em. Big time. He also had Obama AND the press confounded and confused. They expected a testy exchange on Libya but they got a rehash of the first debate. Think of the self control it took for Mitt to execute as he did. Obama fell right into the trap. Mitt knows it's over.

I now believe him. he didn't get there by accident. Can't wait for Rush's take...

This is rationalization. Mitt should have gone harder.You exactly right and I'm getting very ticked off reading this crap. The fact is that Romney came across as a timid,rambling mess in the first few minutes of the debate and it could cost us dearly.

Romney knows he has already won. When the video is released of our people in Ben-Gazzy being murdered, in real time, and that Obama “went to bed”, (per Glenn Beck) He will be FINISHED! No need to argue Libya in the debate.

29
posted on 10/23/2012 6:39:04 AM PDT
by faucetman
( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)

Disclaimer: I only watched the first 40 min. or so of the last night’s debate.

Romney’s first answer was a disaster, IMO. Instead of talking about Libya — THE most important event in the past month — he rambled about the Mideast in general. In that and other questions, he kept “agreeing” with Obozo’s plan of action. Big mistake.

I happen to believe this debate was watched, by and large, only by the political junkies. Casual observers are bored with the debates by now. Men were watching football. Monday nights are usually busy for moms (popular night for school meetings). Romney would have been better off shoring up his base, and uneasy conservatives, with some good hard hits instead of playing the concilitory middleman.

32
posted on 10/23/2012 6:42:26 AM PDT
by workerbee
(The President of the United States is DOMESTIC ENEMY #1)

Yes, Romney knows he has won. I think he’s known it since before the debates started actually. I talked to his son Tagg back in September - told him it was going to be a rout, and he seemed to really think so too. (I’ve thought so for four years, but that’s another story).

Having said that, I think Benghazi is an issue he’s just moved past, having fumbled it in the first debate and not needing it now.

Wait and see if he governs as wimpy as he debated last night. I mean, he might - it is a concern - but as Mark Levin has said, “we’ll deal with all that later” - meaning, get the Marxist out of the White House first, then start hammering the “repube-icks” to the right.

The bad news is that since Mitt is ahead and George W. Bush is the devil, we have to pretend that it was indeed Obama, with Crocodile Dundee's knife clenched between his teeth, who brought Osama bin Laden to justice.

Bush understood, and Mitt understands, that Osama became irrelevant except for being a potential cheap political point. Many were distressed when he said that getting Osama wasn't the hottest thing on his plate, but he was absolutely correct. All the trash surrounding Zero's part in it shows that while he tried to leverage it for maximum benefit, all Zero did was turn Osama into some corny catch phrases like "Osama's dead and GM's alive". Rely on childish catch-phrases long enough and they finally make it clear that it's all you have in your arsenal. Mitt and his have done well to leave it in the background while the Left tries, ineffectually, to capitalize on it.

I agree with you on the shallow narrow politics of the moment, but I profoundly disagree on the bigger picture. Just like the economy in the ditch, the causes are all liberal and the solutions all conservative. When we ignore these truths in an attempt to sneak through a debate, we weaken our ability to actually correct the problems in the long run. It was Bush Cheney Rumsfeld conservatism that led to Osama’s killing, period. Obama liberalism stood in the way, before he finally carried it out. Truth matters.

But yes, you did point out the purely political calculations Mitt made.

Glen Becks radio guys this morning think that Mitt’s campaign realized that most men would be watching Monday Night Football and there would be more women viewers of the debate who would want less arguments and more facts.

I agree with you on the shallow narrow politics of the moment, but I profoundly disagree on the bigger picture. Just like the economy in the ditch, the causes are all liberal and the solutions all conservative. When we ignore these truths in an attempt to sneak through a debate, we weaken our ability to actually correct the problems in the long run. It was Bush Cheney Rumsfeld conservatism that led to Osamas killing, period. Obama liberalism stood in the way, before he finally carried it out. Truth matters.But yes, you did point out the purely political calculations Mitt made.

Gosh - almost like putting a bag of dog crap on a porch, lighting it and ringing the doorbell. If Mitt had changed the tune to talking about the Bush-Cheney conservatism that led upt to Osama's demise, it would have been a disaster - truth be damned. Mitt understands that and his folks understand how to best try to oust Zero. "Sneaking" through a debate laden with land mines would seem to be the smart way to go unless you're a Thelma and Louise type...

The one place in the debate that I jumped up in glee, believing Mitt would blast the ball off of the tee was the Moderator’s direct question on whether they would go on record stating that an attack on Israel was an attack on the US. I thought the peacocks answer was nuanced e.g. “We will stand with them’”. I had hoped Mitt would look the camera in the lens and say, an attack on Israel is an attack on the US. As the peacock was babbling it did cross my mind that Israel is attacked on a daily basis and the question might have been more nuanced itself than I first perceived. None the less, it was the democrats that said ‘No Israel, No Israel, No Israel’, three times before their DNC leadership disregarded their vote and did the political expedient thing, overriding their vote on the platform. Their words and vote stand however not only on Israel but more importantly on their vote on God in their platform. ‘No, Israel, No Israel, No Israel, no God, No God, No God’

The consequences of this will not go away on November 6 but a battle in the war of ages may be won.

50
posted on 10/23/2012 7:47:04 AM PDT
by Mizpah
((Teach your children how to think, not what to think.))

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.